Allowed

aM/s Gayatri Construction Company v. Tata Projects Limited.

Telangana HC12 Feb 2025ARBAPPL/271/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contractor sought appointment of an arbitrator for unpaid dues of Rs.3.15 crores under a work order after the respondent failed to respond to arbitration invocation e-mails. The respondent raised no objection. The court appointed a former judge as arbitrator, leaving all contentions open.

What did the court decide?

Sri Justice M. Seetharama Murti, Former Judge, AP High Court, appointed as Arbitrator; liberty to raise contentions before him; no costs.

aM/s Gayatri Construction Company Vs Tata Projects Limited. — Arbitration | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³¹⁶⁸ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN

¶6

ARBITRATION APPLICATION NO: 271 OF 2024

¶7

Between:

¶8

M/s Gayatri Construction Company, a sole proprietorship having its registered office at 4051406 Labh lcon Near Sales, lndia GotriVasan Road Vadidara, Gujarat390021

¶9

Also at

¶10

607, Felix Square, Ansal APl, Sushant Golf City, Lucknow - 226030 Rep by its Proprietor - Mr' lt/lanoj Kumar Singh ...AppLIcANT

¶11

AND

¶12

Tata Projects Limited a private limited Company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at one 'Boulevard, 2nd, 3'd anil 4th floors, Lake' Bouleiard Stieet, Powai, Mumbai400076

¶13

Also at

¶14

Mithona Towers - 1, 1-7-80 to 87, Penderghast Road, Secunderabad, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500 003

¶15

.,.RESPONDENT

¶16

Arbitration Application filed under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Concilation Act of 1996 R/w Scheme for Appointment of Arbitrator, 2000 for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, praying that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to (a) appoint a person, conversant with disputes arising out of Work Order as the nominee Arbitrator on behalf of the Respondent, in pursuance of Clause 26 (ii) of the Special Conditions of the Contract, annexed to Work Order D1.1111112022, (b) ln the alternative this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to appoint a sole arbitrator conversant with disputes arising out of construction contracts, in pursuance of Clause 26 (ii) of the Special Conditions of the Contract, annexed to Work Order Dt.1111112022 (c) for costs

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P VISHNU VARDHAN

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent: Sri Siddarth Gadugu Representing

¶19

Ms. Shireen Sethna Baria

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

HON'BLE SRIJUSTICE IC LAKSHMAN

¶22

ARBITRATION APPLICATION No.27l OF 2024

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

Heard N'lr. P. Vishnuvardhan, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Siddharth Gadugu, leamed counsel representing Ms. Shireen Sethna Baria, Ieamed counsel for the respondent

¶25

The respondent has awarded work contract to the applicant i.e., SBU-O&G (OIL, GAS & HYDROCARBONSyHRRL IIPCC - 04 PACKAGII DCJ/500053/18232, dated 11.11.202'.2 on the spccific terms and conditions made therein. According to ther applicant, it has executed the said work in terms of the aforesaid^q'ork order. It is entitled to an amount of Rs.3.15 Crores. Despite repeated requests made by it, the respondent did not pay the said amount. Therefore, invoking arbitration clause of the Special Conditions to the^(lontract annexed to the said work order, the applicant has sent e-mails dated 09.05.2024 an<1, 14.06.2024 to the respondent with a request to propose sole Arbitrator in terms of the said work order. Despite receiving and acknowledging the said e-mails, respondent did not respond to the same. Therefore, the applicant liled the present arbitration application.

¶26

¶27

KL,J Arb.Appl.No.27l of 2024

¶28

Mr. Siddharth Gadugu, leamed counsel reprcsenting Ms. Shireen Sethna Baria, leamed counsel for the respondent, on instructions, would submit that the respondent has no objection in appointing an arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes betwebn the applicant and the respondent. However, liberty may bc given to the respondent to raise all the contentions and grounds which they have raised in the present application before the Arbitrator.

¶29

Clause - 26 (11) of the Special Conditions to the Contract annexed to the said work order deals with 'arbitration'. which is relevant and the same is extracted as under:

¶30

"26.II) Arbitration: The TPL and the Contractor shall make every effort to resolve amicably by direct informal negotiation any disagreement or dispute arising between them either under or in connection with the Conhact. Ifafter 30 days from the commencement of such bformal negotiations, the TPL and the Contractor have been unable to resolve amicably a Contract dispute, the same sha[[ be referred for resolution to a single arbitrator in case the parties can agree upon one, otherwise to two arbitrators, one to be appointed by each party and an umpire to be appointed by the two

¶31

.-r._ .J.-?.:

¶32

¶33

KL,J Art,.Appl.No.2 7l of 2024

¶34

arbitrators. The arbitration shall be carried out in accordance with and subject to the provisions of thc Indian Arbitration and Reconciliatiorr Act. 1 996, or any statutory modification or reena(rtment thereof fbr the time being in force. The decir;ion of the arbitrator/umpire shall be final and binding upon both parties. The venue for Arbitration shall be Hyderabad, Telangana (India). Execution of the Contract shall be continued by the Contractor during the arbifiation proceedings unless otherwise directed in writing by the TPL."

¶35

It is the specific case of the applicant that it has executed the aforesaid work pursuant to the said work order, dated 1 I .11.2022. There is no complaint against the applicant herein. It is entitled for an amount o1' Rs.3. 15 Crores. The respondent is not paying the said amount. l'here is no response from the respondent to the aforesaid e- mails dated 09.05.2024 and 14.06.2024. Therefore,^.there are disputes between the applicant and the respondent which are aibitrable in nature to be adjudicated by an Arbitrator.

¶36

{

¶37

The present arbitration application is accordingly rrllowed, and Sri Justice M. Seetharama Murti, Former Judge, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati, R/o Flat No.602,^.,4., Block, White

¶38

¶39

KL,J Arb.Appl.No.27l of 2024

¶40

,..r

¶41

House Apartments, H.No.8-2-67412 &2A, Road No.l3, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, Telangana State - 500 034 (Mobile # 9440405308 &. email Id: [email protected]), is appointed as an Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the applicant and the respondent. Liberty is granted to both the parties to raise all the contentions and grounds which they have raised in the present application before the leamed Arbitrator, and it is for the leamed Arbitrator to consider thc same. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to

¶42

costs.

¶43

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending

¶44

in the Arbitration Application shall stand closed.

¶45

Sd/- K. SRINIVASA^RAO o T REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// TION OFFICER

¶46

To,

¶47

Sri Justice M. Seetharama^{Murti, Former Judge, High Court of Andhra} Pradesh at Amaravati,^{R/o FlatNo. 602,'A' Block, White House Apartments'} H.No. 8-2-67412 &^{2A, RoadNo. 13, BanjaraHills, Hyderbad, Telangana} State_500034(Mobile#9440405308&emailld:[email protected]) (By Special Messenger) (Along with^{a Copy of affidavit and material} papers)

¶48

One CC to Sri P Vishnu^{Vardhan, Advocate} [OPUC]

¶49

One CC to M/s. Shireen^{Sethna Baria,Advocate} [OPUC]

¶50

Two CD Copies

¶51

VH/gh

¶52

3&f -Ef . - ..:- ; :H,--:X't 1-'-xxr:-:::w-----r.xx-'-:xs* }x'x=X*ft-

¶53

1 . -,'**'.'.. . =Lxxftjffi}#,

I /

HIGH COURT

DATED:1210212025

ORDER

ARBAPPL.No.271 ot 2024

¶59

C
) 01riri 2ffi
t-
'\l . 1 .-

¶60

ALLOWING THE ARBITRATION APPLICATION

aM/s Gayatri Construction Company v. Tata Projects Limited.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

aM/s Gayatri Construction Company v. Tata Projects Limited.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Heera Begum @ Kaleem Sulthna Vs The State of Telangana

Sheribai Abhishek Reddy Vs Telangana State Election Commission

Mr. Syed Sajid Nawaz Vs The State of Telangana

Shaik Osman Vs The State of Telangana

M. Jayender Vs The State of Telangana

M/s Gayatri Construction Company Vs Tata Projects Limited